• 10.18318/td.2016.en.1.4

TrangaBellam (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has no information that suggests this en-wiki article to be NPOV. My analysis of the paragraphs:

• An unsourced paragraph on the aims of the journal, probably quoted from their website.
• An unsourced paragraph about the various people who are affiliated to them, probably quoted from their website.
• A paragraph that vouches for the reliability of the journal by citing a communique from a Polish Ministry. Then, there are details about accessing back-issues.
• A one-line paragraph about an award by (arguably) the party-magazine of PiS.
• A one-line paragraph about their EiC(s), probably quoted from their website.
• A list of books published by the journal.

TrangaBellam (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, if you find that there are reliable historians — though I doubt that you understand the term — who admire Glaukopis, feel free to add them. But otherwise, I take a dim view of your shenanigans. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That said, you can add the people who are affiliated to them and their previous EiCs. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam - You removed this tag without following Template:POV#When to remove. Your personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant. I’m kindly asking you to restore it. GizzyCatBella🍁 15:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true: In the absence of any discussion. I have bold-faced the clause. You have probably missed that Piotrus did not open any t/p discussion; this entire section is drafted by me. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to edit summary of the user who inserted the tag. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You suggest that edit-summaries are a way to discuss content? Fascinating. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]